Βαριέμαι να γράψω γιατί αυτό που γράφεις είναι μια φιλοσοφικά λανθασμένη άποψη. Παραπέμπω "First, consider that one powerful argument in favor of moral realism involves pointing out certain objective moral truths. For example, "Cruelty for its own sake is wrong," "Torturing people for fun is wrong (as is rape, genocide, and racism)," "Compassion is a virtue," and "Parents ought to care for their children." A bit of thought here, and one can produce quite a list. If you are really a moral relativist, then you have to reject all of the above claims. And this an undesirable position to occupy, both philosophically and personally.Second, consider a flaw in one of the arguments given on behalf of moral relativism. Some argue that given the extent of disagreement about moral issues, it follows that there are no objective moral truths. But this is what a basic logic text refers to as a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise."http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ethics-everyone/201201/rejecting-moral-relativismΠροτείνω επίσης του βιβλίο του Simon Blackburn "Being Good", το παρακάτω podcasthttp://www.philosophybites.libsyn.com/simon_blackburn_on_moral_relativismκαι το άρθρο τουhttp://philpapers.org/rec/BLAMRA-2